Slashdot Mirror


New Satellites of Jupiter Discovered

dss902 writes "The discovery of 18 new satellites of Jupiter, bringing the total of known Jupiter satellites to 58 were made using the world's two largest digital cameras at the Subaru (8.3 meter diameter) and Canada-France-Hawaii (3.6 meter diameter) telescopes atop Mauna Kea in Hawaii. Recoveries were performed at the University of Hawaii 2.2 meter with help from Yanga Fernandez and Henry Hsieh also from the University of Hawaii. Brian Marsden of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics performed the orbit fitting for the new satellites. More info here." We ran a story on the first eight, but now... eighteen.

105 comments

  1. So this info isnt as good as the floppy Enterprise by FauxReal · · Score: 0

    You'd think real space exploration might be a priorty.

  2. Subaru? by The+Original+Yama · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Subaru make telescopes now? I thought they just made cars.

    1. Re:Subaru? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Word has it that this new satellite is AWD.

    2. Re:Subaru? by s20451 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't know if the telescope is associated with the company. However, in Japanese, "Subaru" is the name for the the Pleiades star cluster.

      --
      Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
    3. Re:Subaru? by worst_name_ever · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yes, they make a telescope, and it transfers power from the moons that slip to the moons that grip!

      --

      In Soviet Rush, today's Tom Sawyer gets high on you.
    4. Re:Subaru? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Woowzer. You make up that sig all by yourself? Do you use it on your interoffice memos also. Cause a rad up sig like that deserves to seen.

      Pat yourself on the back boy, no place but up for a snappy little thinker like you.

    5. Re:Subaru? by The+Dobber · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually its owned by the Japanese goverment. As I recall, the prime contractor was Mitsubishi. That was a long time ago (10+ years) though, so I might be wrong. Big ass piece of glass though. 30+ tons, shipping box weighed another 30 tons.

      Little background on the scope

      http://www.corning.com/discovery_center/subaru_i nd ex_content_pop.asp

    6. Re:Subaru? by k-0s · · Score: 1

      Why would Mitsubishi make a telescope named after a rival, Subaru? That seems like a bonehead move.

  3. Great! by Treeluvinhippy · · Score: 5, Funny

    Some new worlds to explore with my starship made from a floppy!

    --
    >
  4. Perhaps... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All these little moons are Jupiter's evil bits?

  5. To think.... by The+Original+Yama · · Score: 3, Funny

    ... that all this time Jupiter has been mooning us 58 times simultaneously. That cheeky devil!

    1. Re:To think.... by cjellibebi · · Score: 1

      58 moons? There must be one hell of a lot of werewolves on Jupiter for sure!

  6. Other uses for the powerful technology? by Mattygfunk1 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Would you rather have powerful telescopes pointed at Jupiter looking for more moons, or looking nearby for potential "dinosaur style" human-killing asteriods?

    I know which I would prefer.

    ___
    bump bump bump cheap web site hosting

    1. Re:Other uses for the powerful technology? by AndroidCat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      IANAA, but I thought that you don't really want to use the most powerful telescopes for spoting comets and asteroids. You want something that can see a relatively large area of the sky, and when you spot something moving, you zoom in with the "big guns".

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    2. Re:Other uses for the powerful technology? by machine+of+god · · Score: 1

      So we can do what? Look at it while it comes down on us? While it'd be nice to know, if there's nothing we can do about it, knowing serves no function, and would be a waste of resources, I think.

    3. Re:Other uses for the powerful technology? by manonthespoon · · Score: 1

      Oh come on! Have major hollywood crapfests taught you nothing. There are at least TWO courses of action assuming we get a heads up on the imminent impact of a life-ending asteroid. 1: We send oilmen into space to blow it up.(Armageddon) 2: We stoically stand on the beach and wait to die.(Deep Impact) I mean, just imagine how long it will take congress to decide which we're supposed to do. Advance warning would be quite useful.

    4. Re:Other uses for the powerful technology? by Cyno · · Score: 1

      I'd rather hear about a new moon on jupiter before I die.

      We're all going to die someday. I'd rather not know about it before hand and be disappoint by my government one last time.

    5. Re:Other uses for the powerful technology? by barakn · · Score: 1

      ....unless you have a fairly good idea of where your "comets and asteroids" are going to be in the first place, like stuck in orbit around Jupiter.

      --
      "I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
    6. Re:Other uses for the powerful technology? by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      Of course. My point was that we're not slowing down spotting Earth-intersecting objects by using powerful scopes on Jupiter and friends.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    7. Re:Other uses for the powerful technology? by cmacb · · Score: 1
      How about telescopes spotting new moons containing man-eating dinosaurs. Let's just look for those!

      OTOH I bet we COULD do more than one thing at a time.

    8. Re:Other uses for the powerful technology? by mikerich · · Score: 1
      Much of the risk from comets comes from short period comets that whip around the Sun in a few tens of years. And guess which planet produces short term comets?

      Yup, Jupiter.

      A comet comes in from the Oort cloud and makes a close approach to Jupiter. Jupiter's gravity turns that highly elliptical orbit into a much less elliptical orbit with its aphelion somewhere around the orbit of Jupiter. That comet then spends its time whizzing around the inner Solar System - which includes us.

      Having a look at Jupiter space could be interesting, we might see something that wasn't there before and we can take a look to see what Jupiter is catching. If we can calculate how often Jupiter picks up satellites, we can help calculate the risk to Earth.

      Best wishes,
      Mike.

    9. Re:Other uses for the powerful technology? by Trogre · · Score: 1

      Apparently it's a big-ass sky.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    10. Re:Other uses for the powerful technology? by EvilBastard · · Score: 1

      Lets see...

      They went to a small area of known volume and gravity conditions where noone had been able to see small asteroid-type bodies, and promptly went and found 18 of them.

      Sounds like a perfect proof of concept test,which is then followed by calibration, and is then followed by upscale to production.

      The techniques being developed here are *exactly* what you are asking them to do.

    11. Re:Other uses for the powerful technology? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      58 moons orbiting Jupiter? No wonder it's covered with gas.

    12. Re:Other uses for the powerful technology? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, according to some of the people there, that's one of the purposes for which Subaru was built (I got to intern there in '99). Subaru was built primarily for the observation of intrasolar/near solar objects.

      Tons of cool hardware there too. They had plans for 3 dedicated OC-12 lines (one to the 'scope from the Hilo lab, one to Japan, and one to the west coast), though they "only" had a couple OC-3's while I was there. Also had 5 petabytes worth of storage on Sony Petasites, 40 GB RAM, a few terabytes on a huge RAID setup comprised of smallish (2-4GB IIRC) SCSI HDDs, a large vector parrallel processing supercomputer, and some type of Sun big iron (I seem to remember it looking like an E15k, but I may be mistaken). Oh yeah, and 2-3 computers (A Sun workstation, Mac (running linux), and sometimes also a 'doze box or laptop) on pretty much everyone's desk.

    13. Re:Other uses for the powerful technology? by jqpublic · · Score: 1

      IAAA and you are exactly right. For asteroid searches you want a smaller telescope with wide
      field of view. You want to cover large swaths of
      sky quickly and frequently, returning to those same areas to see what has moved.

  7. Do any of the new ones look like black slabs? by happyhippy · · Score: 3, Funny

    In the proportion 1:3:9?

    1. Re:Do any of the new ones look like black slabs? by sprouty76 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Shouldn't that be 1:4:9 - the squares of 1, 2, 3?

      Been a while since I read it so I may be mistaken.

      --

      No, I don't want a free iPod

    2. Re:Do any of the new ones look like black slabs? by happyhippy · · Score: 0

      DOH!

    3. Re:Do any of the new ones look like black slabs? by inode_buddha · · Score: 1

      you may be correct; 1:4:9 was the proportions of the mysterious monolith described by Arthur C. Clarke in 2001: A Space Oddessey.

      Strangely similar to the Golden Mean.

      --
      C|N>K
    4. Re:Do any of the new ones look like black slabs? by g00z · · Score: 1

      We just picked up a transmission from jupiter:

      "All These Worlds Are Yours Except Europa. Attempt No Landing There. Use Them Together. Use Them in Peace."

      --
      "The Wright brothers were the first to fly with a heavier-than-air machine, but boy did they have a lousy plane"
    5. Re:Do any of the new ones look like black slabs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      And for those bad at math, that was considered "signifigant" because it was the squares of 1:2:3.

      Probably because a chunk 1:2:3 on a side wouldn't be near as impressive. Aliens have a flair for design, after all.

    6. Re:Do any of the new ones look like black slabs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All these bases belong to you. Except Europa bases belong to us.

  8. dupe by dazst · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    We ran a story on the first eight, but now... eighteen.

    Still, not good enough excuse to post a dupe!

    1. Re:dupe by Tablizer · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Dupe post on dupe moons? Cool.

  9. You mean by pardasaniman · · Score: 2, Funny

    You mean the Canada-Freedom-Hawaii!! Silly Americans! Tricks are for kids!

    1. Re:You mean by Drakonian · · Score: 1

      Hehe, as a Canadian I was expecting something more along the lines of Freedom-Freedom-Hawaii.

      --
      Random is the New Order.
    2. Re:You mean by Zaak · · Score: 1

      Hehe, as a Canadian I was expecting something more along the lines of Freedom-Freedom-Hawaii.

      No, most of Canada can stay. It's just Freedom Canada that has got to go.

      Darn Freedomians.

      TTFN

  10. Those guys a start a company by arvindn · · Score: 4, Funny
    Jovian satellite naming services Inc

    Get your own Jupiter moon NOW! We offer to name any newly discovered satellite of Jupiter with a word of your choice. Rates starting at just $100/moon! For satellites up to a diameter of 500 km we charge only $100, and $50 extra for every 200km of additional size. You can pre-book a name for yet to be discovered satellites up to 3 years in advance! We have exclusive contracts with international astrophysical society. So hurry!!

  11. And then? by GeekDork · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    It'd be really great to know when such a thing is coming. But what should be done if one was coming? Even if it was possible to nuke the thing away (which is highly improbable), I could still understand every government who wanted to keep its nukes at home for now with the U.policeS.ofA throwing their stupid weight around.

    And despite all recent attempts, my karma is still excellent.

    --

    Fight hunger. Filet a politician and send him to a 3rd world country of your choice.

    1. Re:And then? by GeekDork · · Score: 1
      Of course hippie-slackers such as yourself will proably lay about in traffic (not a bad ideal actually) and whine about how we are depriving the asteroid of its rights and blah, blah, blah.

      Ah, the sweet smell of prejudice. First off, I wouldn't think that I'd meet your definition of "hippie-slacker" all too well (whatever that might be). If by hippie-slacker you mean "CS student with a basic understanding of physics that shaves regularly and is just a little sceptical about governments going gung-ho", then yes, that's about me.

      Second, I'd like to know what rights an asteroid has in your whacky little - and certainly interesting in case of a hit - world. That's a problem a lot of people would certainly love to see answered. I can imagine a dialogue going like this:

      Operator: "Incoming asteroid! Stop in an orbit and cease all hostile activities. You have the right to remain silent. You also have the right to be strip-mined into oblivion. Please stand by until the chinese shuttles arrive."
      Asteroid: "..."
      --

      Fight hunger. Filet a politician and send him to a 3rd world country of your choice.

  12. Epilepsy warning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER: Anyone reading the article should be forewarned that the page contains blinking text. If you want to read what the text says you're gonna have to jot down each word as it appears because it's really stupidly fast (at least too fast to read the whole sentence).

  13. Ramblings by ticklemeozmo · · Score: 1

    The dept line says "jupiter's-a-daddy"..

    Who is the mommy? Mother Earth of course! Why not Venus? Although hot, she's deadly.

    The only problem is that Earth has things that can be transferred from planet to planet.. humans! A cosmic STD if you will.

    --
    When modding "Informative", please make sure it both has a source and IS actually informative.
    1. Re:Ramblings by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      Hmm... You never know with these god types. Bulls, golden showers, making it with swans.. As well as the more common sort of thing.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  14. Why? by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What's the difference between a moon and a lump of rock? Why catalog rocks at Jupiter and let all the rocks in Saturn's rings go uncatalogued? Where is the dividing line?

    1. Re:Why? by hobbesmaster · · Score: 1

      Notice they said "Satellites" not moons. More or less anything in orbit of a planet counts as a Satellite. Earth has two or three natural satellites (including the moon) and several thousand arteficial satellites, IIRC.

    2. Re:Why? by Theodore+Logan · · Score: 4, Informative

      First off, note that the write up mentions only satellites and says nothing about moons.

      But as for your question: historically there hasn't been a need for a hard definition, and hence there isn't one. At this point in time, however, with 118 official moons in the solar system and a whole bunch of candidates, lines need to be drawn.

      You may want to read this article for details.

      --

      "If you think education is expensive, try ignorance" - Derek Bok

    3. Re:Why? by imsabbel · · Score: 2, Informative

      well, it is true that these new moons arent very large, but saturns rings are 99% little more then dust (the roche-threshold is a bitch). There are a few very large "rocks" in the rings, but they are reckognized as moons.

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    4. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slashdot also ran a story on the problems of defining what a planet might be a month or so ago. What that discussion concludes in is of course of direct relevance for the definition of a moon.

    5. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what about the rings around Uranus?

    6. Re:Why? by DemENtoR · · Score: 0

      As far as i rember from my astronomy class (HS level only, mind you), it needs to make two full rotations around the body.

    7. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From the article, if you look at the list of sattelites orbiting Jupiter, all 18 recently discovered are 4KM in diameter or less.

    8. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This question bothered me as well. Fortunately, I was able to fire up MATLAB and got the following definitive answer: Pete wanted it that way.

    9. Re:Why? by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > What's the difference between a moon and a lump of rock?

      What's the difference between a planet and a lump of rock? Nothing except scale. Take into account Pluto & the Kiuper belt. There are rocks bigger than Pluto orbiting the Sun but aren't classified as planets. It's only because humans have a tendency (arguably, a "need") to classify everything that we argue about if something is a planet, moon, rock, whatnot. They're all rocks (some of them very large rocks, mind you), regardless of size or what it is orbiting.

      Aha, I knew those books on Zen would come in handy... The planet does not really exist.

  15. I doubt that the observations are correct. by Krapangor · · Score: 0, Troll

    Such small satellites must have orbits very near to Jupiter, about 1/3 of the Earth-Moon distance. This is similar like Mercury being the smallest planet of the solar system. (Pluto is not a planet but a moon of Uranus at a nonlinear chaotic trajectory around teh center of the Uranus/Sun dual-system.)
    But Jupiter is a much larger planet than earth about 254 earth masses. So these satellites must rotate much faster around Jupiter, if they don't want to be sucked onto its surface by gravitation. A simple calculation show that they must in fact have 1/5 of light speed which is relatively unlikely.
    So, I suppose that these astronomer guys have an error in their calculations.

    --
    Owner of a Mensa membership card.
    1. Re:I doubt that the observations are correct. by AndroidCat · · Score: 1
      I doubt that they're in close. If they were they'd be perturbed by the major jovian moons and probably bumped out of orbit. And they would have had to have a cloaking device to remain hidden from probes orbiting Jupiter for years.

      Cloaking device? "That's no moon..."

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    2. Re:I doubt that the observations are correct. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Either that or you're just smoking crack.

    3. Re:I doubt that the observations are correct. by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 4, Informative

      Please explain the logic that lead to your conclusion that these moons are so close to Jupiter? Smaller has NEVER meant closer to the primary. Mars is smaller than Earth. Saturn, Uranus and Neptune are smaller than Jupiter. Kuiper-Belt and Oort Cloud comets are smaller than nearly anything else. I could go on with this listing for quite a while, but you get the point.

      If you check the database, all of these newly discovered moons are outside of the orbits of most of the heretofore known moons. Well, well outside, in fact. These irregular moons are probably captured asteroids.

      For your calculation to be right, by the way, the moons would be orbiting Jupiter 35 meters from it's barycenter. I'm going to question your orbital semi-major axes. (Also, your mass of Jupiter is incorrect. It's 318 times the mass of Earth.) Also, moons don't rotate about their planet, they revolve. Rotate means to spin.

    4. Re:I doubt that the observations are correct. by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      Many of Jupiter's moons have distant orbits.

      Thebe, Amalthea, Metis and Adrastea are small and close in, then Io, Europa, Ganymede, Callisto. The rest of them are in a mess of orbits going out quite a way.

    5. Re:I doubt that the observations are correct. by tom420.com · · Score: 1

      So, you are better then them? What are you doing here on /. then? Why aren't you at the observatory providing us with better figures than they did?

  16. definition by VanillaCoke420 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What is a moon? We don't even have a definition for a planet yet.

    1. Re:definition by B3ryllium · · Score: 2, Funny

      A moon is when you bend over and show Uranus to someone.

    2. Re:definition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Welcome to the wacky world of science...

      Although we don't really have a good definition for "planet", a moon is something that obits around one.

    3. Re:definition by Amon+Re · · Score: 1

      I thought a planet was just some object that orbits a star.

    4. Re:definition by VanillaCoke420 · · Score: 1

      When is it a planet and when is it a star? As far as I understand, there is no established standard for what exactly is a planet. If a planet is "some object that orbits a star", then the Kuiper belt objects, asteroids, Oort objects and comets would all be planets? There is a discussion going on whether or not Pluto is a planet or a KBO, for example.

  17. Strange by Timesprout · · Score: 4, Insightful

    to think that given the size of the universe we are still discovering things that are practically on top of us. Makes you wonder what else is out there.

    --
    Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
    What truth?
    There is no dupe
  18. Thanks God by BohKnower · · Score: 2, Funny

    I always use Jupiter's satellites to name my servers and I was getting out of options.

    1. Re:Thanks God by B3ryllium · · Score: 1

      Heheh ... I suppose "Io" is a very appropriate name for a server.

    2. Re:Thanks God by tom420.com · · Score: 1

      Now you have 18 new names: J-1 through J-18 :)

  19. Re:fp! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are truly a remarkable person. I salut you.

  20. Re:Important information by manonthespoon · · Score: 1

    I think someone should mod the parent poster up. Even if this is a serious attempt to criticize linux, it's more funny then a troll. I guess it is sort of off topic though.

  21. 58 satellites? Appropriate. by Brown+Line · · Score: 1

    Well, it's only appropriate that Jupiter have such a harem of consorts. Any idea what they'll be named?

    --
    [this .sig for rent]
    1. Re:58 satellites? Appropriate. by Anonymous+Cow+herd · · Score: 1

      They will all be named "Monica Lewinski". :-)

      --
      Ita erat quando hic adveni.
  22. Why is this a big deal? by Cyno01 · · Score: 1

    It says satellites, not moons, big difference. It was my understanding that jupiter, along with all of the gas giants, each had inumerable satellites, they're called rings.

    --
    "Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
    1. Re:Why is this a big deal? by tom420.com · · Score: 1

      In most documentation I've been reading (including from the Nasa and some simplified scientific readings) 'moon' is used as a synonim, a simpler word to explain quickly what is a satellite... are they really 2 different words?

  23. Naming of moons by Shanes · · Score: 1
    Those guys are of course free call the moons whatever they want, but the official names are assigned by WGPSN (working group on Planetary System Nomenclature) and finally aproved by the International Astronomical Union's General Assembly.

    And they tend to stick to mythology names... Last October 11 Jupiter moons discovered 2-3 years earlier were assigned names from the Greco-Roman mythology.

    1. Re:Naming of moons by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      By now they must be down to Hum, God of Things That Were There a Moment Ago.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  24. I Propose a New Icon by use_compress · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If scientists want to find 100 moons orbiting Jupiter, there are going to be many Slashdot articles on new Jovian moons. Thus, I propose we create a new icon for all of these articles.

    1. Re:I Propose a New Icon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The current space icon seems to me to represent satellites found around the two gas giants with the most in the system just fine. I noticed as I read the article how unusually appropriate it was this time around.

  25. Mass of Jupiter. by Eevee · · Score: 2, Funny

    You know how it is with those crash diets. First you cut back until you're only 254 times as massive as the Earth. Then, you get a sudden craving for a frozen treat and have a couple of comets and bam! You're up to 318 again.

  26. Yep while by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trash is captured by Jupiter's gravity and some doofus thinks it it a moon. If it ain't as big as the Earth's moon, it ain't a moon. Bubba's Law of Planetary Determination. Where did ya'll attend college? Yep, Mars has no naturally occurring moons.

    1. Re:Yep while by tom420.com · · Score: 1

      so, everything smaller than us doesn't worth existing?

  27. Galileo by dsfd · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Galileo discovered only four but this (among other reasons) was enough for Roman Church to prosecute him. The existence of objects moving arround Jupiter was a serious problem for the official geocentric model of the universe, and therefore, a challenge to the authority of the Church. Only recently, the Pope apologized for that.

    I wonder what would they think of the existence of 58 Jovian satellites, just to mention one of the wonders that science has discovered.. Can we reach conclusions from the past history and apply them to the present ?

    1. Re:Galileo by rcw-home · · Score: 1
      Can we reach conclusions from the past history and apply them to the present?

      No. The heretical principles of Separation of Church and State and Free Speech must not be allowed to threaten the authority of the church.

    2. Re:Galileo by axxackall · · Score: 1
      Only recently, the Pope apologized for that.

      "Oops. Wrong guy. Or wrong reasons. Or wrong methods. Or concepts. Whatever. Sorry."

      Every church is a political organization fighting to have more followers, who is willing to pay more money for support the curch or whose mind is desired by the big paying guy. Every religion is a tool of such mind control and it is usually a very dogmatized philosophy (with God faith most likely).

      Our souls is a very internal matter and it does not require any political infrastructure to improve it. One teacher at most. But even that is not necessary. All we need is just to work (mentally and spiritually) to discover it. We have all needed information deep inside us, including meta-information about how to work. The will to find it is enough.

      --

      Less is more !
  28. Re:Important information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's also redundant. This was posted yesterday too.

  29. Re:RIP: DAVID BLOOM (1964 - 2003) by The+Dobber · · Score: 0


    Sunburn

  30. How Jovian are they really? by dspeyer · · Score: 1

    The article says that the orbits they'v calculated are only preliminary. I wonder if, when other gravitational fields are taken into acount, they're really closed around Jupiter. The satellites are orbiting backward, which sounds a lot like they used to orbit the sun forwards a little clsoer iun than Jupiter.

    I wouldn't be surprised if they become sun-orbiting asteroids within 100 years.

    1. Re:How Jovian are they really? by mikerich · · Score: 1
      If the satellites are in retrograde orbits they're certainly captures from somewhere.

      Retrograde orbits are not stable in the long term. The tidal effects of Jupiter will cause the satellite's orbit to decay; the satellite will drift ever-closer to the planet with an accelerating rate of decay.

      Jupiter has got 'em good and hard and will eventually pull them apart.

      But not for a few million years.

      Damn, I evolved too early!

      Best wishes,
      Mike.

    2. Re:How Jovian are they really? by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 1

      Yep, they're almost certainly captured. But their lifetimes are probably a lot longer than you think. Tidal effects depend on the mass of the moon creating the tidal bulge and the proximity to Jupiter. Small, distant moons don't raise much in the way of tides and feel little in the way of higher order gravitation moments from Jupiter. So they don't evolve tidal very quickly at all. I'd guess that it would take billions of years to get them in close to Jupiter. In fact, the effects of other bodies (moons, other planets, etc) probably overwelm the tidal effects.

      Without tides, retrograde moons are a lot *more* stable than prograde moons. Hamilton and Krivov have a paper where they discuss some of this, but retrograde moons are stable out to about a Hill radius (half an astronomical unit, in the case of Jupiter), while prograde moons are only stable out to about half of a Hill radius.

      This points to a pretty good test of whether these are Jovian moons: are they inside the Hill sphere? If "yes", then the are probably fairly well bound. Since I seem to recall Scott Sheppard is searching the Hill sphere (this is from a talk at a meeting, so I'm relying on my memory, here), I'll bet that these fit the bill.

    3. Re:How Jovian are they really? by mikerich · · Score: 1
      Oooh thanks for all the extra information. And who said Slashdot wasn't educational?

      Best wishes,
      Mike.

  31. I wonder... by Trogre · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...how long it will take for these moons to appear in Celestia.

    Quaoar and 2002 MN were added only a few days after being discovered.

    --
    "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    1. Re:I wonder... by Gruuue · · Score: 1

      You can already get a Celestia add-on with the new moons:

      http://shatters.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2112

      --Chris

  32. In Soviet Russia by Gruturo · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Jovian moons name YOU!

    *ducks*

    --

    Vacuum cleaners suck. Kings rule.
  33. Dude? where's my satalight? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh so that's where I parked the spare satalight, I hate when that happens, also don't eat Tai Fried rice 4 days old and 15 day old pizza(that's been left out), If you find something move in your potato buds instant mashed potato's that's iether protien or some june bugs

  34. *BSD is dying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    It is official; Netcraft now confirms: *BSD is dying

    One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered *BSD community when IDC confirmed that *BSD market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.

    You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.

    FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time FreeBSD developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: FreeBSD is dying.

    Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

    OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.

    Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.

    All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.

    Fact: *BSD is dying

  35. Moons by craesh · · Score: 0

    It seems like they are all ex-asteroids or perhaps comets, at least they have all highly excentric orbits - I wouldn't be surprised if they'd find more of these 'moons'.

    Big brother is catching you ;)

  36. Subaru company logo by John+Bayko · · Score: 1

    In addition, the logo you see on all Subaru cars is a set of stars - a stylized version of the constellation itself.